Patna High Court
Arman @ Md. ArmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail is warranted as the dispute is essentially matrimonial and does not justify denial of liberty.
Summary
Arman, a Muslim resident of Patna, was charged under Sections 85, 351 and 352 of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with a criminal case filed by his wife, Rup Laxmi Kumari, alleging mental and physical cruelty, dowry demands and triple talaq. The petitioner applied for bail, contending that the allegations were vague, he had no prior criminal record, and the dispute was essentially matrimonial, better suited for the Family Court. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court observed that the marriage had broken down due to religious differences, the petitioner was not maintaining the wife, and the case appeared to be a family matter rather than a grave criminal offense. Consequently, the Court granted bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The order directed that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner concealed antecedents or misrepresented prior bail applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of cruelty, dowry harassment and triple talaq under Sections 85, 351, 352 B.N.S. and Section 4 D.P. Act.
- Whether the matter is more appropriately dealt with by the Family Court rather than a criminal trial.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal antecedents warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes — s. 351, 352, 85
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- cruelty
- matrimonial dispute
- family court
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- Section 85
- Section 351
- Section 352
- Section 4 D.P. Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16944 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-811 Year-2024 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Arman @ Md. Arman son of Md. Aftab, Resident of Shiya Masjid Gali, Darzi
Tola, East of Dariyapur Masjid, Police Station- Pirbahore, District- Patna, at
present Qtubuddin Lane, Dariyapur, Near Rahim Hotel, Post Office-
Bankipur, Police Station- Pirbahore, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rup Laxmi Kumari Daughter of Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Service Madhvi
Niketan, F.T.M, 30, Infront of CPI Amla Office Langartoli Sampatchak,
Patna, At Present Thakurbari Road, park Road, Nawal Kala Enclave, Flat no.
304, Kadamkuan, Ps- Kadamkuan, Dist- patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State are present. However, O.P. No.2/Informant has not
appeared despite valid service of notice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 811 of 2024, dated
23.10.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 351 and 352 of BNS and Sections 4 of D.P. Act.
4. As per allegation, the O.P. No.2/Informant was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16944 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/5
married with the petitioner as per Special Marriage Act, because
the informant belongs to Hindu Community, whereas the
petitioner belongs to Muslim Community. However, after the
marriage, the petitioner started committing mental and physical
cruelty against her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and
he has even pronounced triple talak. After pronouncement of the
triple talak, he went back to his parental home leaving behind
the informant/O.P. No.2 and she requested the petitioner to take
her to his parental home and in the meantime, she came to know
that his parents had compelled him to divorce the informant and
for the confirmation of such information, she went to the
parental house to the petitioner where the parents and other
family members of the petitioner were making false allegation
about the character of the informant without any basis and she
has further alleged that parents and other family members of the
petitioner asked her to pay dowry, if she wants to be part of the
family. But on account of inability of the informant to fulfill
such illegal demand, the petitioner divorced her which she
protested. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members
used physical force against her and hence, she filed the criminal
case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16944 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/5
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that on account of difference of
religious beliefs of the petitioner and the informant-wife, the
marriage is not working and hence, matrimonial dispute has
arisen. He further submits that there is no specific allegation of
any physical assault with reference to time, place and nature of
the assault, except bald allegation of physical and mental
cruelty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case
for Family Court for adjudication of her matrimonial dispute.
6. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
7. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
9. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties.
10. From the allegation, it transpires that the marriage
is not working on account of different religious beliefs of the
petitioner and his wife/ O.P. No.2 and it appears that petitioner
is not keeping his wife/Informant in his matrimonial home, nor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16944 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
4/5
is he maintaining her. In such situation, the informant-wife has
legal right to move Family Court for restitution of conjugal
rights as well as maintenance, if so advised. But it is not a case
where bail could be denied to the petitioner.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named,
to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Kadamkuan
P.S. Case No. 811 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the
following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16944 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
5/5
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.